Contemporary Management and Outcomes of Veterans Hospitalized With Alcohol Withdrawal: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies describe contemporary alcohol withdrawal management in hospitalized settings or review current practices considering the guidelines by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with alcohol withdrawal on medical or surgical wards in 19 Veteran Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019. Demographic and comorbidity data were obtained from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Inpatient management and hospital outcomes were obtained by chart review. Factors associated with treatment duration and complicated withdrawal were examined. RESULTS: Of the 594 patients included in this study, 51% were managed with symptom-triggered therapy alone, 26% with fixed dose plus symptom-triggered therapy, 10% with front loading regimens plus symptom-triggered therapy, and 3% with fixed dose alone. The most common medication given was lorazepam (87%) followed by chlordiazepoxide (33%), diazepam (14%), and phenobarbital (6%). Symptom-triggered therapy alone (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.80) and front loading with symptom-triggered therapy (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92) were associated with reduced treatment duration. Lorazepam (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41) and phenobarbital (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54) were associated with increased treatment duration. Lorazepam (adjusted odds ratio, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.05-17.63) and phenobarbital (adjusted odds ratio, 6.51; 95% CI, 2.08-20.40) were also associated with complicated withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support guidelines by the ASAM to manage patients with long-acting benzodiazepines using symptom-triggered therapy. Health care systems that are using shorter acting benzodiazepines and fixed-dose regimens should consider updating alcohol withdrawal management pathways to follow ASAM recommendations.

A Multicenter Observational Study Comparing Virtual with In-Person Morning Reports during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted how educational conferences were delivered, leaving programs to choose between in-person and virtual morning report formats. The objective of our study was to describe morning reports during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of virtual formats, attendance, leadership, and content. METHODS: A prospective observational study of morning reports was conducted at 13 Internal Medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021, including a follow-up survey of current morning report format in January 2023. RESULTS: In total, 257 reports were observed; 74% used virtual formats, including single hospital, multiple hospital, and a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual participants. Compared with in-person reports, virtual reports had more participants, with increased numbers of learners (median 21 vs 7; P < 0.001) and attendings (median 4 vs 2; P < 0.001), and they were more likely to involve medical students (83% vs 40%; P < 0.001), interns (99% vs 53%; P < 0.001), and program directors (68% vs 32%; P < 0.001). Attendings were less likely to lead virtual reports (3% vs 28%, P < 0.001). Virtual reports also were more likely to be case based (88% vs 69%; P < 0.001) and to use digital presentation slides (91% vs 36%; P < 0.001). There was a marked increase in the number of slides (median 20 vs 0; P < 0.001). As of January 2023, all 13 programs had returned to in-person reports, with only 1 program offering an option to participate virtually. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual morning report formats predominated. Compared with traditional in-person reports, virtual report increased attendance, favored resident leadership, and approached a similar range of patient diagnoses with a greater number of case-based presentations and slides. In spite of these characteristics, all programs returned to an in-person format for morning report as pandemic restrictions waned.

What internal medicine attendings talk about at morning report: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Morning report is a core educational activity in internal medicine resident education. Attending physicians regularly participate in morning report and influence the learning environment, though no previous study has described the contribution of attending physicians to this conference. This study aims to describe attending comments at internal medicine morning reports. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of morning reports conducted at 13 internal medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020, and March 30, 2021. Each attending comment was described including its duration, whether the comment was teaching or non-teaching, teaching topic, and field of practice of the commenter. We also recorded morning report-related variables including number of learners, report format, program director participation, and whether report was scripted (facilitator has advance knowledge of the case). A regression model was developed to describe variables associated with the number of attending comments per report. RESULTS: There were 2,344 attending comments during 250 conferences. The median number of attendings present was 3 (IQR, 2-5). The number of comments per report ranged across different sites from 3.9 to 16.8 with a mean of 9.4 comments/report (SD, 7.4). 66% of comments were shorter than one minute in duration and 73% were categorized as teaching by observers. The most common subjects of teaching comments were differential diagnosis, management, and testing. Report duration, number of general internists, unscripted reports, and in-person format were associated with significantly increased number of attending comments. CONCLUSIONS: Attending comments in morning report were generally brief, focused on clinical teaching, and covered a wide range of topics. There were substantial differences between programs in terms of the number of comments and their duration which likely affects the local learning environment. Morning report stakeholders that are interested in increasing attending involvement in morning report should consider employing in-person and unscripted reports. Additional studies are needed to explore best practice models of attending participation in morning report.

A Comparative Study of Scripted versus Unscripted Morning Reports: Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Morning report is one of the central activities of internal medicine residency education. The two most common morning report formats are scripted reports, which use preselected cases with prepared didactics, and unscripted reports in which a case is discussed without preparation. No previous study has compared these two formats. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of morning report conducted at 10 academic medical centers across the United States. RESULTS: A total of 198 case-based morning reports were observed. Of these, 169 (85%) were scripted and 29 (15%) were unscripted. Scripted reports were more likely to present a case with a known final diagnosis (89% vs 76%, P = 0.04), use electronic slides (76% vs 52%, P = 0.01), involve more than 15 slides (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001), and reference the medical literature (61% vs 34%, P = 0.02), including professional guidelines (32% vs 10%, P = 0.02) and original research (25% vs 0%, P = 0.001). Scripted reports also consumed more time in prepared didactics (8.0 vs 0 minutes, P < 0.001). Unscripted reports consumed more time in case history (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P < 0.001), physical examination (3.0 vs 2.0 minutes, P = 0.06), and differential diagnosis (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most contemporary morning reports are scripted. Compared with traditional unscripted reports, scripted reports are more likely to involve a case with a known diagnosis, use extensive electronic presentation slides, and consume more time in didactics, while unscripted reports consume more time in the early diagnostic process, including history, physical examination, and differential diagnosis. Residency programs interested in emphasizing these aspects of medical education should encourage unscripted morning reports.

A Multicenter VA Study of the Format and Content of Internal Medicine Morning Report.

BACKGROUND: There are more than five hundred internal medicine residency programs in the USA, involving 27,000 residents. Morning report is a central educational activity in resident education, but no recent studies describe its format or content. OBJECTIVE: To describe the format and content of internal medicine morning reports. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational study of morning reports occurring between September 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, in ten different VA academic medical centers in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Report format, number and type of learner, number and background of attending, frequency of learner participation, and the type of media used. Content areas including quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, evidence-based medicine, ethics, and bedside teaching. For case-based reports, the duration of different aspects of the case was recorded, the ultimate diagnosis when known, and if the case was scripted or unscripted. RESULTS: A total of 225 morning reports were observed. Reports were predominantly case-based, moderated by a chief resident, utilized digital presentation slides, and involved a range of learners including medicine residents, medical students, and non-physician learners. The most common attending physician present was a hospitalist. Reports typically involved a single case, which the chief resident reviewed prior to report and prepared a teaching presentation using digital presentation slides. One-half of cases were categorized as either rare or life-threatening. The most common category of diagnosis was medication side effects. Quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, and evidence-based medicine were commonly discussed. Medical ethics was rarely addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Although a wide range of formats and content were described, internal medicine morning report most commonly involves a single case that is prepared ahead of time by the chief resident, uses digital presentation slides, and emphasizes history, differential diagnosis, didactics, and rare or life-threatening diseases.

Serum sepsis, not sickness.

Rarely taught in medical schools, clinical reasoning is the ability to discern the important from the unimportant and to arrive at accurate and efficient clinical conclusions. Identifying errors in reasoning is difficult; however, undetected clinical reasoning errors can have exponential consequences. As quality and patient safety come into focus, identifying and preventing clinical reasoning errors have become imperative. The authors present a case of a man sent for admission from a subspecialty clinic diagnosed with infliximab-induced serum sickness. Not countering the expert's diagnosis, initial workup failed to diagnose joint abscess and sepsis. Heuristics are mental shortcuts used to make decision making more efficient but can lead to error. The anchoring heuristic, premature closure, confirmation bias and the blind obedience heuristic are examples. Introspective surveillance and interactive hypothesis testing defend against heuristics. The authors conclude by discussing 4 types of hypersensitivity reactions, serum sickness in particular, and the chimeric nature of infliximab.